I am shocked that the military is imprisoning people without a trail. Absolutely shocked I tells ya'.

He's getting off lightly.

ETA: Sure is weasel words in here.

This is absolute bullshit. If it's so obvious that he's guilty, why isn't he getting a trial so they can prove it, and then put him in prison legally?

Also, to detain somebody for up to ten months and more, without trial, is also illiegal. Regardless of any torture at all. If I recall, you can only hold a man for up to 24 hours without decent evidence for what you're accusing him of. Even if you know he did it (he had means, motive and opportunity), without actual evidence you have to let him go.

Quote:

Because I suspect the 'damning evidence' Knight keeps talking about isn't as damning as they'd have us believe. If it were truly that damning, there's no reason why he shouldn't have gone to trial immediately. THEN they could put him in prison and treat him as inhumanely as they wanted because he'd actually have been CONVICTED of something, as opposed to simply being ACCUSED. There IS a difference. Accusation does not=automatic guilt. Or at least it didn't used to. Of course, that was before GITMO and the whole 'enemy combatants can be held forever and ever till they die (assuming we don't torture them to death first by waterboarding them). We have the Bush administration to thank for that lovely little piece of work (which totally violates the laws of the Geneva Convention, which I thought the US was a part of).

Well OBVIOUSLY, Rabid. That's the point I was making.

Obviously their evidence isn't sufficient to convict him, so they're just torturing him until he cracks and confesses to a crime he hasn't commited. If he does crack, they done good in their protection of military secrets. But if he doesn't, they can't let him go now because he'll tell people about what they've done, which is bad for the military.

Or perhaps what he's revealed is in fact that the military has done something illiegal so they keep him locked up for that, which also wouldn't surprise me. Suppose they do have damning evidence for that but to bring it to trial would also reveal their own crime.

He's charged with a capital crime and the prosecution has already stated that they are not seeking the death penalty.

The Unoriginal wrote:

Penguin wrote: Rabid Badger wrote: Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote: This is absolute bullshit. If it's so obvious that he's guilty, why isn't he getting a trial so they can prove it, and then put him in prison legally? Because I suspect the 'damning evidence' Knight keeps talking about isn't as damning as they'd have us believe. If it were truly that damning, there's no reason why he shouldn't have gone to trial immediately. Actually, they can have all the evidence in the world needed to convict him long before the investigation has really even finished the beginning stages. Manning allegedly leaked classified information, which means they have to go over everything he's ever touched, everyone he's ever been associated with, let alone related to... at this point, it's not even about him. It's finding out just how big of a breach there was, who he may have been working with, etc. Okay, so how come this didn't happen to John Anthony Walker? The CIA hadn't found out yet that they could get away with it?

The Walker spy ring didn't have the Internet.